"Diablo 3 will make everyone else accept the fact you have to be connected. If you have a juggernaut, you can make change. I'm all for that. If we could force people to always be connected when you play the game, and then have that be acceptable, awesome," id Software Creative Director Tim Willits tells Eurogamer. "In the end, it's better for everybody. Imagine picking up a game and it's automatically updated. Or there's something new you didn't know about, and you didn't have to click away. It's all automatically there. But it does take juggernauts like [Diablo 3] to make change. I'm a big proponent of always connected. I'm always connected. Our fans are always connected. There will be a few people who will resent the fact you have to be online to play a single-player game. But it'll change."

Pankin wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 12:19:Please do yourselves a favor and stop feigning shock and horror when businesses make decisions that increase their profits. It's like wondering why water has to be "so damn wet all the time." You sound ridiculous.

Are Devs and Publishers going to stop feigning shock and horror when gamers balk at being treated as bottomless wallets?

No?

Then I guess gamers won't stop feigning shock and horror when one of its oldest devs, who used to give us things like the entire first chapter of Doom for free, suddenly starts bleating like Actiblizzard.

Pankin wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 12:19:Please do yourselves a favor and stop feigning shock and horror when businesses make decisions that increase their profits. It's like wondering why water has to be "so damn wet all the time." You sound ridiculous.

Are Devs and Publishers going to stop feigning shock and horror when gamers balk at being treated as bottomless wallets?

No?

Then I guess gamers won't stop feigning shock and horror when one of its oldest devs, who used to give us things like the entire first chapter of Doom for free, suddenly starts bleating like Actiblizzard.

Creston wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 00:53:I think Vegas put the odds at 500,000,000 to 1 that EA will release a patch. Iow, it's not happening.

You could be right. Then again shutting down singleplayer would be a new low, and something I am not going to say I am sure they will do. We shall see.

It's certainly not a good sign that Mass Effect and Spore still have their stupid install limits years after they came out, years after they were cracked and even years after they have been as cheap as $5.

Nor that $7 DLC you bought 20 months ago still needs to authenticate EVERY SINGLE FUCKING TIME YOU START THE FUCKING GAME.

Pankin wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 12:19:Let me tell you how businessmen/women interpret that particular sentence: "what the fuck are these kids talking about? What other goal could we have?"

While I'm sure it's comforting as a businessman to say "Oh, it's always been this way." There was a time, very long ago, but a time no less when creating a quality product was an important aspect of business. More important in fact than the "How much MORE can we make off of this?" sentiment.

'Make something good and then try to sell it for a profit' was once upon a time more important than 'make something cheap and sell it for as much as we can get'.

That time ended around the time "Busineness people" started to exist. Those who didn't bother actually creating anything themselves and thus had nothing invested in the actual quality of the product. All they were required to do was sell the product and acquire ever cheaper supplies and labor to make them, regardless of the negative impact on the product itself

So long as it still sells, then who cares how cheaply it's made? Somehow that sentiment has become something defensible to these people. You talk about naivety, I talk about honor and pride. Two things very much lacking in "business people" today.

jsmith wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 14:31:Seen on Zenimax / Bethesda's Rage forums. I smiled at the last part.

Confused Fan wrote on Aug 10, 2011, 14:13:...After all, money is money and profitability seems to be the number one goal for today's businesses.

While I admire this Zenimax/Bethesda Forum Poster's zeal for defending the rights of gamers (and I'm sure it's a popular sentiment among them) but you kids really do yourselves a disservice when you speak about the goals of "today's business" as though they're brand new and you've just discovered something unholy. The level of na´vetÚ on display is embarrassing.

Let me tell you how businessmen/women interpret that particular sentence: "what the fuck are these kids talking about? What other goal could we have?"

I'm unsure why gamers feel that the bailiwick of business should be comprised (in part) of some altruistic component but I can assure you all here and now that it never ever will. I doubt there are any MBA types that frequent this board (and if there are, they're being remarkably quiet) but here's a little Business 101 for ya: profit motive + competition = do what you must to thrive and grow.

Please do yourselves a favor and stop feigning shock and horror when businesses make decisions that increase their profits. It's like wondering why water has to be "so damn wet all the time." You sound ridiculous.

Having said that, I encourage you to boycott those businesses that you feel are making the wrong decisions. Who knows? Maybe id will change their mind about the idea of persistent connectivity...but it does seem as though the writing is on the wall. I fear that you don't / won't have enough people in your corner when they tally the sales figures for D3 because make no mistake: that is the real milestone they're looking toward. If D3 sells well, it's a green light for everyone else. I know you know this already but I wanted to stress it again.

But that whole business and profitability na´vetÚ thing: you should probably smarten up about it.

For me it comes down to this -- if it requires a constant connection it isn't a single player game. Plain and simple. Yeah, you have to have a constant connection to play WoW, even if you always play solo. That's fine it's marketed as a MMO.

Creston wrote on Aug 12, 2011, 00:53:I think Vegas put the odds at 500,000,000 to 1 that EA will release a patch. Iow, it's not happening.

You could be right. Then again shutting down singleplayer would be a new low, and something I am not going to say I am sure they will do. We shall see.

It's certainly not a good sign that Mass Effect and Spore still have their stupid install limits years after they came out, years after they were cracked and even years after they have been as cheap as $5.

Mordecai Walfish wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 18:05:The gaming press/media should report, with each article about DRM being used, the specific track record of the company in question and how they have handled customers/franchises in the past similarly.

The gaming press/media are BOUGHT by the very companies who shove this DRM down your throat.

Remember PC Gamer's loud bleating about how "They weren't going to put up with draconian DRM, and were going to mention it in every review, and deduct scores and not recommend any game with such DRM yadda yadda yadda hear us roar, we the Mighty Defenders of the PC Gaming Community!"

You know, you just forgot about that big stance you were taking a whole fucking month ago.

Everyone knows EA paid them to not mention it, and they happily took the fucking money. Just as they happily take EA's money to give shit like Dragon Age 2 a 94% and proclaim it as "Maybe gaming's best storytelling ever."

So while your idea is commendable, I wouldn't hold out hope that the gaming media is going to help out. Their principles go out at the door as soon as those ad dollars get jeopardized.

Bhruic wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 11:24:EA has already repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to shut down servers. Why expect they'd keep them up longer if they also serviced single player games?

C&C4 will be a good test for the future. It required a constant connection despite having a singleplayer campaign and the game bombed terribly. I am sure they will want to shut it down not too long from now, and whether they release an offline patch for singleplayer or not will have a big impact on my support for them in the future.

I think Vegas put the odds at 500,000,000 to 1 that EA will release a patch. Iow, it's not happening.

^Drag0n^ wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 18:13:This is actually one of the things I genuinely like about Steam. They let you know what type of DRM is used for all games they sell on the Store Page for the title, so you can pick and choose accordingly.

^D^

When it's correct, yes. But they get lazy sometimes, or don't update it until later.

But at least they try. That's way more than we'll ever see out of the other publishers. Frankly, I think it should be in the system Requirements label at retail.

^Drag0n^ wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 18:13:This is actually one of the things I genuinely like about Steam. They let you know what type of DRM is used for all games they sell on the Store Page for the title, so you can pick and choose accordingly.

^D^

When it's correct, yes. But they get lazy sometimes, or don't update it until later.

This is actually one of the things I genuinely like about Steam. They let you know what type of DRM is used for all games they sell on the Store Page for the title, so you can pick and choose accordingly.

Agreed. These things should be watched closely by consumers who have long been at odds with this DRM tactic, as it does obviously open up these possibilities.

The gaming press/media should report, with each article about DRM being used, the specific track record of the company in question and how they have handled customers/franchises in the past similarly.

Ones with track records that indicate we should not be all-trusting of this new DRM should rightly be held accountable for their past choices, and accordingly, not supported in this newest endeavor.

I'm sick of companies trying to use their flagship titles to create new industry standards, as it is a very "trojan horse" tactic, both largely unwanted and unneeded by the masses but deemed as profitable and beneficial to the company. Battlefield 3 sees this with the Origin game store, and now Blizzard is injecting an always-online tactic seemingly just to facilitate the spreading of it's "trojan horse" auction house, as it will essentially allow them to print money.

I personally won't be supporting any of this crap, and would even refrain from buying the 2 games I look forward to most this year if they included anything similar.

Bhruic wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 11:24:EA has already repeatedly demonstrated their willingness to shut down servers. Why expect they'd keep them up longer if they also serviced single player games?

C&C4 will be a good test for the future. It required a constant connection despite having a singleplayer campaign and the game bombed terribly. I am sure they will want to shut it down not too long from now, and whether they release an offline patch for singleplayer or not will have a big impact on my support for them in the future.

MattyC wrote on Aug 11, 2011, 09:36:And even if both of these are down Blizzard has been cool with ICCUP and WarCraft 2 Combat edition.

Blizzard is also the company that sued the bnet emulator guys out of existence...

Creston

As far as I know they only did this with one of them and I am not sure why. I guess because it added no additional functionality? I couldn't say. They never really messed with ICCUP and WarCraft II Combat edition. Not sure why those two were given carte blanche and FSGS (that was it right?) was not.

I don't know either, and it was a long time ago. I'm just saying that while I agree that bnet has been around for a long time and there's no real reason to have to worry that it'll go down, IF it goes down, you're in no way guaranteed to have some kind of emulator available.